November 01, 2004

Leadership - 12 Key Criteria

I ran across this article in Tikkun Magazine (A Bimonthly Jewish and Interfaith Critique of Politics, Culture, & Society). Now, my notion of divinty is not personal... in other words, I don't have "faith" in a particular god. My beliefs tend to lean more towards the Eastern Philosphies... that having been said, spirituality is a common thread to all ideologies.

Anyway, I'd love to hear comments on this article, political, religous... whatever. Although I agree with much of this article, I am able to seperate the political and religous content with the overall message.

I hope you enjoy it as much as I did.

How the Bush Administration Has Diminished America's Spiritual Capital

Tikkun Magazine (Sep/Oct 2004 issue) - By Danah Zohar

America is not at peace with herself. Many people feel a sense of despair or even defeat. The issues at stake are far deeper than any candidate’s vision for the nations economy, job creation, import controls, or even the mess in Iraq. While neither President Bush nor Senator Kerry has articulated such, thinking (and worried) members of the electorate know that November 2004 will be a battle for the American soul.

A nation's soul is defined by it's spiritual capital: its sense of identity, its fundamental values, its deep sense of purpose, its shared vision, its relationship to the outside world, and its integrity as a nation. Spiritual capital is not concerned with any particular religion or belief system, but is instead reflected in what a nation believes in, what it aspires to, and what it takes responsibility for.

In the Oxford English Dictionary, capital is defined as "that which confers wealth, profit, advantage or power." Capitalism, the economic doctrine that underpins America's all-important corporate culture and much of its national identity (thus Herbert Hoover's famous, "the business of America is business"), gives the narrowest possible definition to all these terms. Wealth is taken to mean money, so the wealth that makes the world go round is material wealth and profit is material profit. Advantage is measured in money or in the power to manipulate people to maximize one's (usually money-based) interests. In this strictly material sense of capital, America is the richest nation on earth.

But lately we have also been hearing about "Social Capital," which Fraces Fukuyama writes about at length in his book Trust. It is defined as a combination of a nations material wealth and the social benefit it gains from having low drug and alcohol abuse, low divorce and illegitimacy rates, low litigation figures, high literacy, and high degree of trust. I would also add the benefit gained from a strong sense of social justice and an absence of gross inequality. All of these factors contribute to social stability and thus to social capital.

"Spiritual Capital" takes the broadening of capital a stage further, transcending the usual notion of capitalism altogether. It is the bedrock on which all other kinds of capital rest, defining the "commodities of exchange" in terms of meaning, inspiring vision, and the cherishing and implementation of fundamental human values. As such, nations invested with high spiritual capital act from a much broader context with attention to a wider array of concerns. They realize that when spiritual capital reserves are low, people become ill or stressed more often; there are higher rates of drug and alcohol dependency, depression, and suicide; more family and community breakdown; and more of the kind of alienation that leads to greater selfishness, crime, and vandalism. In other words, without spiritual capital, people lose heart.

America inherited rich reserves of spiritual capital from the vision of its Founding Fathers, which were depleted from time to time by the shame of slavery, the genocide of the Native Americans, the witch trials, economic rape by the robber barons of the nineteenth century, Vietnam, etc. but on the whole the balance sheet has remained positive. America has, for the most part, been a good nation among nations. However, the attitudes and policies of the current administration are squandering the nations spiritual capital so seriously that the deficit risks matching Bush's record-breaking and very dangerous budget deficit. Both could reach a point of no return.

There has always been a deep ideological split in America. In his article "The America We've Got," (subscription required) for the March 2004 issue of Prospect, Anatol Lieven succinctly described this historical division as that between the "Jeffersonians" - who advocated universalist principles of freedom, individualism, liberty, democracy, the rule of law (both national and international), egalitarianism, populism, civil liberties, and laissez-faire economics - and the "Jacksonians," who have represented a more narrow and jingoistic American nationalism. As Lieven wrote, the Jacksonians cultivate "not only specific national hatreds, but also hostility to all ideals, goals, movements, laws, and institutions which aim to transcend the nation and speak for the general interests of mankind." Jacksonians have tended to represent the values of white, Protestant America, but it is the Jefforsonians tradition that has predominantly defined America, giving it a foundation of transcendent values that could embrace and give common ground to the many ethnic and religious differences brought to America by its wholly immigrant population.

The Bush Administration is firmly rooted in the Jacksonian vision of America. It has promoted a narrow, nationalistic vision of America defined by bellicose self-interest abroad and the narrow self-interest of its own right-wing, largely Southern, white electorate at home. It has acted against diversity and egalitarianism and drawn from the wider Jefforsonian vision of freedom and democracy only when it can manipulate these principles to the advantage of its own, Jacksonian purposes.

A nations spiritual capital is reflected in the basic motivations that drive its people. Motivations lie behind a people's behavior, but they also determine its thought processes. The Bush administration through both rhetoric and policies, has encouraged the American people to act from the negative emotions of fear, greed, anger, and self-assertion. It has divided American against American, raised the levels of domestic fear and suspicion, built a culture of fear around the events of 9/11, stoked the nations anger (both internal and against "the evil men who are against us"), encouraged a culture of greed with its economic policies and loyalty to big business, and fostered a national self-assertion not seen since the Big Stick diplomacy of Theodore Roosevelt and his Rough Riders.

Each of the three kinds of capital held by a nation is associated with one of three kinds of intelligence available to the that nations people and leadership. Material Capital (money) is built using our rational, "how-to" intelligence, or IQ. Social Capital requires the availability of Emotional Intelligence (EQ), which allows us to empathize with the needs and feelings of others, understand and improve our own motivations, and build trust. Spiritual Capital requires high levels of Spiritual Intelligence, or SQ. Our spiritual intelligence reflects our access to and need for deep meaning, transcendent vision, fundamental human values, and an abiding sense of purpose. Just as high spiritual capital is necessary to build and maintain material and social capital, high spiritual intelligence is necessary to use effectively our intellectual and emotional intelligence.

The twelve qualities that define high spiritual intelligence are: self-awareness, spontaneity, vision and value orientation, holism, compassion, celebration of diversity, field independence, fundamental questioning, ability to reframe, constructive use of adversity, humility, and sense of vocation.

The spiritual intelligence of America's Founding Fathers was high. They built the nations original reserves of spiritual capital with a vision of that inspired the whole world, and raised the sights and aspirations of humankind. But how does the Bush Administration rank in the area of spiritual intelligence? Let's put it to the test.

Self-awareness is knowing what we believe in and value, what motivates us at the deepest level, and how these beliefs and motivations affect us and others. Bush has an astounding ability to manipulate American public opinion, but he has shown neither emotional nor spiritual intelligence in articulating what his true motives are, nor in understanding the impact of American success and cultural hegemony on Islamic cultures. An America encouraged to lead through motives of fear, anger, greed, and self-assertion cannot but clash with an Islam reeling from shame, fear, anger and self-assertion. The Bush rhetoric (protecting and spreading freedom and democracy) is out of step with the Bush reality - either intentionally because he wishes to mislead the American people, or simply because the man does not know himself. In either case, he fails the self-awareness test.

Spontaneity is being able to live in and be responsive to the moment and all that it contains. It means being able to think and ac without all the baggage of habit, preconditioning, prejudice, or prejudgment. September 11th represented a new moment in American history. It could have been a great opportunity for America to examine itself and its role and image in the world, to answer honestly deep questions like, "why do they hate us so much?" But Bush responded to these attacks with assumptions drawn from his fathers presidency and with easy mantras about "evil men who hate us because they hate our freedoms." We know from the testimony of Richard Clarke to the 9/11 Commission that it took a great deal of pressure from the intelligence and security staff to dissuade Bush from his beliefs that Iraq had been behind the attacks, and from his still more lingering belief that there was at least a dangerous and active link between Al Qaeda and Saddam Hussein's regime. Bush was so locked into the Iraq scenario that he ignored persistent warnings that an attack on Iraq would distract from the effort to confront the real terrorists, and that such an attack would actually increase the dangers of terrorism. The Bush administration is filled with dogmatists and neocon ideologues who came to office with set assumptions and agendas about the environment, tax cuts, Americans role in the world, who America's enemies are, and how to deal with them. Real events and experiences have not impinged on them. For this reason, they fail the spontaneity test.

Being vision and value led is to act from deep principles and beliefs and to live life accordingly. George Bush and his team would certainly describe themselves as visionaries (and indeed we would have to agree with them). They do have a powerful vision of a global American empire the will spread the values they serve ("what's best for America is best for the world"). The vision inspires leadership and informs their decision-making. But the downside is that visionaries can be so caught up in their visions that they lose touch with reality. This can lead to closed-mindedness, fanaticism, and dictatorial leadership style (The Patriot Act, the Homeland Security Bill, pre-emptive wars, etc.). Adolf Hitler was a great visionary, but he did not serve fundamental human values. Bush is no Hitler, but the values he serves are not the values that defined America as a nation, nor those that have kept her great for over two and a half centuries. They are not the universalist values of freedom and dignity for all, of respect for difference, and of support for international law and the right of national self-determination. His administration failes the true spirit of the vision and values test.

Holism is a sense of the system or of connectivity, an ability to see larger patterns, relationships, and connections. It confers a strong sense of being part of a larger whole. Holism is an ability to look at a problem from every angle and to see that every question has at least two sides, and usually more. It is also a perception of, and loyalty to, a deeper common reality that underlies most differences. Bush is a simple black and white man: "You're either with us or you are with the terrorists." He is also a short-term thinker who does not see America as part of a larger global community nor does he see today as linked to the well-being of tomorrow: "I will not sacrifice American jobs now and endanger the American economy to sign this treaty [Kyoto]." It is as if America were not a part of the world that will suffer as our environment deteriorates. Bush invaded Iraq ignorant of the Iraqi reality, blind to long-term consequences, and with no apparent consideration for what he would do after the war was "won". His administration has refused to consider the consequences of their budget deficit, the weak dollar, the Patriot act, preemptive wars, or Guantanamo. There is no doubt that they fail the holism test.

Compassion is an ability to "feel with" and to have deep empathy for others, particularly for those different from ourselves. It requires that we feel the common humanity of our neighbors even if their views are alien to, or opposite from, our own. Compassion is not mere pity, nor does it make us weak. WE are far better placed to defeat an enemy we understand than one who has us flummoxed. Americans as a whole have never been very good at feeling or understanding others who are different from themselves, but the Bush Administration has brought this failure to a point where it is a threat to America's (and the Western world's) security. Bust does not understand his enemies and he has made no effort to do so. By defining the Axis of Evil and then branding Islamic terrorists as "Evil Men" at every turn, he has turned his back on what really drives the hatred for America in today’s world. The terrorists do commit evil acts, but that does not make them evil men. They are ashamed, alienated, angry, desperate men ready to die to destroy what they see as a threat to their culture and values. Bush's "war on terror" creates more of the same, which will inevitably continue for generation after generation. Bush fails the compassion test, and both America and the world will continue paying for it.

Celebrating diversity means valuing other people, lifestyles, cultures, and opinions for thier differences, not in spite of them. It is a recognition of and sense of gratitude towards life's differing, even conflicting, possibilities and the ways that these can enrich us and broaden our point of view. It thrives on dissent and difference rather than simply tolerating it. The Western mind has never been good at celebrating diversity. We are the culture of one God, one truth, and one way - of either/or rather than both/and. This thinking runs through both Christianity and Islam, with their vocations to convert or conquer (the Jews recognize that other people have other gods, they just want nothing to do with them). Newtonian science (absolute space, absolute time, universal laws of nature) falls into this pattern, and Bush is Newtonian leader. American values, and the American way is the only way and must be exported to all the world, at gunpoint if necessary. Bust does not surround himself with men and women who disagree with him or who make him question his assumptions, no has he inspired or encouraged a national conversation that would lead the American people to question theirs. He fails the celebration of diversity test.

Field independence is a psychological term meaning an ability to stand against the crowd, to know one's own convictions and to live by them, even if they result in isolation or unpopularity. More subtly, it implies an ability to stand apart from the paradigms, assumptions, or habitual patterns of one's own mind, to see when we are in error or thinking in a box. It requires a high degree of self-awareness and critical thought. Without these capacities, field independence is just self-delusion or bullheadedness. Nietzsche pointed out that "convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies." Men or women of uncritical conviction can be fanatical, unreceptive to reality, obstinate, and closed to other points of view or to diversity. The Bush administration stood firmly against world opinion on Iraq, but that was only because they did not think the world opinion important. Blinded by their conviction that whatever is best for (their) America is best for the world, and that the only opinion that matters is domestic opinion, they have ruthlessly manipulated events for the sake of increasing popularity at him. Bush panders to his electoral base with every word and gesture. Every member of that administration, with the possible exception of Colin Powell, reeks of sanctimonious self-belief. They fail the test of self-critical, disciplined field independence.

A tendency to ask fundamental questions reflects a desire to understand things, to get tot he bottom of them. It is accompanied by a tendency to refuse to take anything for granted, questioning the reasons, foundations, and inner workings of everything and asking whether it could be different. Questions are subversive and often undermine smug assumptions and prejudices; asking them requires both humility and an openness to to the diversity of truth. Bush is not a man who asks fundamental questions. He knows what he believes and that what he believes is both right and best for everyone (or at least for his America). He was unwilling to brook any questions about Saddam's complicity in 9/11, nor later the wisdom (and likely aftermath) of invading Iraq. He has given no indication of questioning more deeply what fuels Islamic hatred for America, nor what deeply motivates the followers of Bin Laden. He has discouraged the American media (and thus the American public) from asking fundamental questions with accusations of unpatriatotic reporting, and has leveled the same charge at members of the American intelligentsia. If not a fanatic, he is at least a zealot and a proselytizer.

The ability to reframe is an ability to stand back from a situation or a problem and to see the bigger picture, and an associated ability to be flexible in ones thinking. Reframing can be both spatial - taking in a larger geographical perspective or wider set of situations or people likely to be influenced by a decision - or it can be temporal - noticing how different a strategy looks if viewed over a longer time frame. The practice naturally tests assumptions and values rooted in a more narrow perspective and usually takes us into our discomfort zone. Bush won the presidency with less than half the popular vote and his controversial victory divided the American electorate. He promised to come to office as a moderate Republican serving all the people. Yet his leadership has grown more one-sided and extreme over these past four years. He has followed a narrow and short term vision on energy and environmental conservation, his economic policies have impoverished and weakened state and local governments, his record budget deficit serves the needs of the moment at the expense of the future generations, his tax policies favor the well-off at the expense of low-income families, his rush into Iraq failed to consider the aftermath of depositing Saddam Hussein and ignored the likely (and now certain) backlash in the Arab and Islamic world. His insistence that American-style democracy is the best form of government for all nations shows an ignorance of the social dynamics, complexities, and sensitivities in many of the world's societies, and his commitment to global empire is entirely America-centric, thus thwarting a wider process of global cooperation. Bush seems locked into a narrow perspective on nearly every issue with which he has dealt, and this fails the reframing test.

The positive use of adversity means an ability to own and learn from mistakes and to run problems into opportunities. We recognize our limits and work to surpass them. We grown and learn from suffering or failure and make gains from our setbacks. Perhaps the quality is best summed up by a line from Kiplings famous If: "If you can meet with triumph and disaster and treat those two the same... they you be a man, my son." Lacking a positive perspective to adversity, we can become self-pitying and bitter, feel victimized, or place the blame for our troubles on scapegoats. Americans have never dealt well with adversity, particularly that which has any tragic dimension. It flies in the face of a national optimism and a faith that every problem has a quick and easy solution Yet America today is facing greater domestic and foreign adversity than at any time since the Civil War or the Great Depression. Its values, life-style, self-image, and sense of security (both physical and economic) are all being questioned. It needs a great conversation, a great reflection, a great self-examination. The Bush leadership has not led or encouraged this maturing process. Many in the Bush administration encourage the view that weaknesses within American society are due to lazy and/or immoral underclass, often contaminated by 1960s values, who live dishonestly on welfare, undermine the American way of life, and make life difficult for "good, ordinary Americans" who read the bible and pay their taxes. None of this has brought any healing to America, nor enabled a positive response to adversity.

Humility requires a sense of being a player in a larger drama, a sense of our true place in the world. A sense of humility gets us beyond the isolation of and preoccupation with our own self-importance. It opens up the possibility of learning from experience and others. People or nations who think of themselves as God's gift to the world and of their values as superior to all others have little motivation to listen and learn. Humility is the necessary basis for critical thought and judgment. Its absence can lead to poor strategic thinking. To use a favorite American term, it is a "no-brainer" to ask whether Bush or his administration have a sense of humility. Their arrogance and self-certainty have been overwhelming. Their domineering and grandiose style of global leadership has isolated America perhaps as never before.

A sense of vocation involves being "called" to serve something higher or larger than oneself, called to make a positive difference. It is usually accompanied by a deep sense of gratitude toward those who have helped us, or toward life itself, and a wish to give something back. By their own criteria, the senior members of the Bush administration have a great sense of vocation about building a strong, safe, "patriotic" America that is the center of global empire. But then Osama bin Laden has a strong sense of vocation, too: to destroy the West, to restore the honor of Islam, and to build a global Islamic empire. Both are distortions of true vocations based on self-serving ideology or fanaticism and show poor judgment about their own limitations. Neither is linked to humility or self-awareness and neither serves the larger good that transcends and unifies differences. Both serve a tribal and jealous god. In truth, bin Laden is the Jungian shadow of the Bush vision of America. They are two sides of the same coin, each locked into an exclusive perspective that necessitates conflict with the other. Both fail the vocation test.

From the analysis presented here, George W. Bush and his administration fail every one of the twelve criteria for possessing spiritual intelligence. This presents a grim picture for both America and the world. But we need not leave the building of spiritual capital in the hands of the politicians. To live our own lives on the scale of epoch making, it is not necessary to be president of the United States, CEO of a vast global enterprise, or even an aid worker in South Africa. We just have to stay true to our own deepest ideals and values and make what difference we can, at whatever level we operate in life.

The article, which is not online yet (I hand typed this whole thing), will be located at the following link

Comments

Interesting piece. By its nature America is wrought with turmoil. Our nation is full of people with many different ethnic and belief backgrounds. I can hardly imagine anyone with any spiritual beliefs buying into this without bringing in their religious ideologies.

As I read farther, it gets interesting. Jeffersonian and Jacksonians.. Interesting. I will have to read up on them. I agree with the descriptions so far about fear.

It could have been a great opportunity for America to examine itself and its role and image in the world, to answer honestly deep questions like, "why do they hate us so much?"

This is exactly what I have been trying to say. It’s like we want war. We want hate and anger. After reading “Bonds That Make Us Free” (which by the way, you should pick up a copy. :) ) I realize how far we can get into our hate and anger. Before we know it we don’t even listen to reason. Only the hate anger simmering within us. I was trying to point that out about the Bin Laden video. He is telling the American people how to avoid another attack. He would not say this if he didn’t value life.

They are ashamed, alienated, angry, desperate men ready to die to destroy what they see as a threat to their culture and values.

Again it echo’s what I have been trying to say. They attacked us for a reason. We need to discover that reason. We could even ask them.

Nietzsche pointed out that "convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth than lies."

Well said.

He (Bush) knows what he believes and that what he believes is both right and best for everyone.

Now that is a scary thought.

His insistence that American-style democracy is the best form of government for all nations shows an ignorance of the social dynamics, complexities, and sensitivities in many of the world's societies, and his commitment to global empire is entirely America-centric, thus thwarting a wider process of global cooperation.

Again I have asked the same question. It is assumed our form of government is the best. I disagree. If it was it would work a whole hell of a lot better. Have we considered letting the Iraqi people come up with their own government?

Lacking a positive perspective to adversity, we can become self-pitying and bitter, feel victimized, or place the blame for our troubles on scapegoats. Americans have never dealt well with adversity, particularly that which has any tragic dimension

Wow! That is great! Were do I learn more about this?

In truth, bin Laden is the Jungian shadow of the Bush vision of America. They are two sides of the same coin, each locked into an exclusive perspective that necessitates conflict with the other

Ha, Ha. So true.

Thanks for the article. That was great. I can really connect with many of the things said.

The last two that were so outlandish were, of course, Ronald Reagan (freeing eastern Europe) and Franklin Roosevelt(freeing western Europe and the Southeast Asia).

But, of course, W had disbanded Congress and completely ignored public opinion while he was being such a bore. The 2/3rds Congressional vote was actually a TV show produced in Crawford, Texas.

The French, Germans, Russians, and Chinese all believed that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. But, they were there feeding off the oil for food program and expected sanctions to dissolve entirely. Sweet. Love it when a plan comes together: just stand aside and let the money start rolling in.

And, France (, Incorporated) was offered a $100 Billion oil development deal for a security council veto (last resolution), took the deal, reniged on promise to Colin Powell, and served up the announcement while Powell was watching the news conference at the French ambassadorial residence in NYC.

To coin a well known phrase: its about the money, stupid.

Fast forward five years. France, Germany, Russia, and China are economically wed to Iraq and Hussein decides to settle the score with Kuwait, Jordan, Israel, and Saudi Arabia... and mtake care of the Kurdish problem once and for all.

Now whachagonnado? Nuclear war, perhaps? How do you keep Israel from starting it?

Fast back a couple of years. John Kerry did not know what was going on. He and Edwards both missed over 70% of the open Senate Intelligence Committee meetings and so many of the top secret meetings that neither of them are willing to "fess up" and release the numbers.

Gotta take care business. That's what you're elected to do.

Sorry... that's just the way it is.

Too bad I didn't get a tape recording of the airplane on its way to the Pentagon... or the sound of the explosion when it hit.

In response to the previous comment, it is not hatred. Having lived in Europe for four years, I would call it resentment due to world power.

Consider, if you will, that the French economy is in such bad shape that it might only gain second class standing in the European Union.

Of course he had public opinion on his side - HE LIED TO US (including congress). And, to make matters worse, he has not apologized. I don't think you'd find many people who wouldn't be able to forgive to some extent, in general, Americans are a forgiving bunch of folks. Aside from the lies about the WMD in Iraq, what about this promise to get "the evil doers who want to harm us"? Didn't he say in the third debate that he doesn't think about Osama bin Laden any more? Why not? Sadam Hussein didn't attack the pentagon. Right? Sadam had to go, no question, but what about getting the original job done first? Getting bin Laden. Actually, that is a job that Clinton should have done after the 1993 truck bombing... but he didn't. Of course Clinton lied to us as well... he did have sex with that woman, but his lie didn't get 1000 Americans killed, right?

Fast forward 5 years? Oh, so now our tax dollars are supposed to be spent to prevent something that might happen in 5 years?

Fast back a couple of years? What does Kerry have to do with it? Well, since you brought it up, how do you know how many meetings he attended or didn't? Bush accused him of missing a bunch of meetings, so you take that as the truth?

Resentment? I found a couple of definitions, which would you like to use?

1.) Indignation or ill will felt as a result of a real or imagined grievance

2.) a feeling of deep and bitter anger and ill-will

3.) Resentment is anger exicted by a sense of personal injury. It is, etymologically, that reaction of the mind which we instinctively feel when we think ourselves wronged. Pride and selfishness are apt to aggravate this feeling until it changes into a criminal animosity; and this is now the more common signification of the term. Being founded in a sense of injury, this feeling is hard to be removed; and hence the expressions bitter or implacable resentment.

Well, since you seem to want to defend Bush, perhaps you can help me decide who to vote for. I consider myself a fiscal conservative, I'm a registered repulican but I'm have some cognitive dissonance about who I should support - having voted for Bush in 2000. How do we go from a budget surplus under a liberal like Clinton to the biggest deficit in history under the conservative Bush? Do you have any questions about the Bush Administrations stewardship of the economy? Keep in mind that I don't blame Bush entirely for the economy. We go through normal booms and busts, this is a long bust cycle... but my goodness, look at the size of the deficit. Tax cuts during a war? By the way, is it the governments job to stimulate the economy?

The simple fact is - and this was a hard realization for me - that the party whom I most closely share a set of monetary beliefs with has turned out to be overun with hypocrites. They want smaller government, but the religous right - which Bush is a part of (whether you're willing to admit it or not) - want to tell other people how they should live, what they can or can't do with their bodies, and what scientists are allowed to do.

Here's the thing - I think you missed the whole point of the article. This is the "religous president", yet he doesn't seem to have any of the qualities that a good "christian" (protestant/methodist or whatever faith he's chosen recently) should have as outlined in this article. I think it goes beyond any particular ideology or theology, I think these are good human qualities. You mentioned in your email that these are arbitrarly high standards, but I don't think so. I think that these are standards which we should all try to live by - ESPECICALLY IF YOU ARE THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Am I asking too much on that one?

This is not an Election, this is a Selection (that quote is from Ralph Nader).

I know you to be a good man, and it pains me to see one good man impugn another good man - in this case George W. Bush. As a fellow fiscal conservative, I find plenty of fault with with his spendtrhift ways. But having read Bill Sammon's book "Fighting Back", and many other accounts of his thoughts and actions, anyone with an open mind would conclude that he is a thoughtful steward of spiritual capital in America.

In 1864, the mainstream media villified Abe Lincoln as a bumbler who lied to the nation about the cost of the war, and who made thousands of Southerners HATE him for emancipating Negro slaves. Did he ever wonder why they hated him? Should he have?

In 1864, the overwhelming support of Union soldiers tipped the electoral scale for President Lincoln. In 2004, 75% of our troops support President Bush. The individuals who stand to lose the most - their very lives - put their faith in him. These people valiantly and willing volunteer to help build a better place where only a short time ago people were being tossed into wood chippers. They're not protecting their own personal financial interest. They are sacrificing their safety and time away from their loved ones in the hope that this gift to people halfway around the world will blossom into freedom for all people.

Ask the women of Bamiyan, Afghanistan about the spiritual capital of the United States. Bamiyan was the site of giant carved statues of Buddha. That is until the Taliban took power in Afghanistan; then they destroyed the Buddhas in a show of sense of vocation and diversity. They also destroyed the entire town.

When the Afghan election of 2004 was drawing near, the Talibs threatened to slaughter the voting public. The women of Bamiyan awoke at 3:00am; dressed in preparation for being murdered, and bravely went to the polls. Where they voted. And weren't murdered.

We didn't conquer Afghanistan; we freed it. That puts spiritual capital in the bank. We're doing the same in Iraq. Read the blogs of Chief Wiggles and countless other Americans in Iraq, and contrast them with the pronouncements of Osama and countless other mullahs in Iran. Who is building spiritual capital and who is destroying it?

First, to clear up any misconceptions: I support the troops and I agree that freedom is better than death. I think most people support the troops as well as agree that freedom is better than death.

But, is it our right or responsibility to spread freedom?

Speaking of spreading freedom, that is a nice little marketing tag-line, isn't it? But again, is it our right or our responsibility to do so? You should check out http://www.spinsanity.com/>SpinSanity.com - they have a nice blog going about the truth behing some of the messages that have been spread by the candidates.

What about Sudan? What about all the people trussed with chains and burned alive? What about the 1.2 million villagers in Darfur who have been terrorised into fleeing the embers of their huts? Why aren't we "spreading freedom" there?

I don't confess to undestand everything about this election, the history of the United States, or Foriegn Policy. I do however understand that I don't agree with Bush on too many things. Moreover, as I mentioned at the top of the post, I am able to seperate the political message from the rest of the piece. I assume that most people who read this blog also have the ability to apply critical thinking and I highly doubt that I would have the ability to sway anyones political leanings - nor would I ever want to.

Again Mike, thank you for the VERY thoughtful and well reasoned comment.

Jon, Jon, Jon - A very complex spiritual article to throw at us in this business forum. ;-)

Seriously, this is a FANTASTIC, thought provoking article and I appreciate your sending it my way.

To avoid the political debate, I have a few comments that sidestep the issue of "which candidate is more spiritually enlightened." I think the gist of the article is that America is entrenched in a paradox of longing.

On one hand, we need to believe in the intrepid spirit which "created" America, that of vigilante visionaries who sought out freedom as defined by personal and religious choice, the separation of church and state, and one's "God given" right to make a living and pursue a "better life." All good things to want, though negated by the innumerable crimes commited against Native Americans.

On the other, we preach the necessity of spiritual intelligence - the need to believe in something greater than our self. This sets us up for internal battle of Personal want versus altruism. Individual rights versus the good of the whole.

And in the struggle to establish these individual rights, our "Founding Fathers" (I believe the patriarchal institutions of ruling class have been building thru-out time and are not born out of one epoch - genocide and group subjugation has been occurring since Paleolithic time) pushed the concept of the "Individual" to an extreme.

No where else in the world is there such a fierce battle cry for "personal rights" as in America, and yet, some would say the U.S. is one of the spiritually poorest countries.

We aspire to be like financial icons, Donald Trump and Bill Gates, (in a love/hate sort of way) yet we applaud the selflessness of Mother Theresa or Martin Luther King. We are caught in a confused limbo where the need to gain is at war with the need to give. Neither one in excess works. Case in point, Republicans versus Democrats. No wonder their power is cyclical. We need the balance.

The truth is in our collective consciousness. The spiritual health of a nation can affect that of the individual. However, when these issues are brought to the forefront, and no longer just a discussion for the likes of academics, change can occur. I believe the author summarized this point nicely.

Danah Zohar has drunk deeply from the founts of wisdom and learning but, unfortunately, has come up dry. Anyone who can write, "The terrorists do commit evil acts, but that does not make them evil men." with a straight face needs a reality check, as in a visit to Iraq. One wonders where he was on 9-11...

He is also quick to dismiss Bush as an example of Field Independence when it conflicts with his Left Wing viewpoint.

You ask, "But, is it our right or responsibility to spread freedom? You have to decide for yourself whather it is better to do that or support the insanity that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis during the Saddam regime.

If you have read blogs by Iraqis themselves, you might find that there is a growing pride in their ability to determine their own future, with the exception of Riverbend who seems to feel that things were better under Saddam.

Men of good will can disagree on many things, perhaps even on the truth. But, in the long run, our ability to unearth the actual facts of a matter will resolve many of our differences, if we choose to look at them unflinching. No man is perfect, but no man who is in a position of leadership can afford to have things hidden which can leave him open to blackmail.

With the emergence of blogs as a major factor in the dissemination of information, there will be fewer dark places in which to hide unworthy deeds. Let us hope that this inspires more honorable behavior on the part of our elected leaders.

David, wonderful comment. thank you! I always enjoy it when you stop by - you always help expand my thinking!!

This debate is healthy and I appreciate yours, as well as everyone elses, comments!!

That having been said...

I don't know where Danah was on 9-11, but again, what does 9/11 have to do with Iraq? It is as if anyone who holds an opinion other than that of the Bush administration is bad - let me state this one more time:

Freedom is better than death. I support our troops.

However, you, along with Tony & Mike, present Freedom/Death as a binary (yes/no) choice... when it isn't. If someone doesn't support the freedom of the Iraqi people they wish people would die? Come on... The suffering is horrendous and it offends me. But again, why Iraq and not Sudan?

The continued association of 9/11 & Iraq bothers me. Of course at the time "we" may have acted on the best intelligence we had. Of course freedom is better than death - but we've learned that Sadam didn't have WMD's, we've learned that there was no link to bin Laden, so why continue to hide behind that association?

As for Field Independence, how about the UN? Didn't they think we were wrong about going to Iraq? Didn't they want more time for the weapons inspectors? Why did they want that? If Sadam/Iraq were in the process of consituting a nuclear weapons program, couldn't we have waited 3, 6 or 9 months longer? No, the decision to go was made long before the case was presented to the American people.

1.) Was he was not present? If so, why not?
2.) Maybe he knew that his vote wasn't needed
3.) What were the votes he missed about?
4.) Is his voting record that much different from other senators?

No human is perfect indeed. I'm certainly far from it - and I know that every day I learn a little more. As short as 12 months ago I would never have posted this article on my blog, in fact I would have probably made the same comment to whoever did post it that you made to me. But that is the great thing, we can grow and learn. As I am trying to do. I'm coming to understand that truth is not always black and white, there does exist shades of gray. Perception is reality - and that perception is colored by our beliefs. I know that I've got more questions than answers about the world - and I'm somewhat suspicious of anyone who doesn't.

You end your comment with great statement: "Let us hope that this inspires more honorable behavior on the part of our elected leaders." Here Here!!!

Speaking as a half and half (UK/US), and in my somewhat travelled experience, the Jeffersonian view is the one the world buys into, hence the millions protesting on the streets of London, Paris, Bonn etc. They think we're acting "un-American." And it scares them. I tend to agree.They don't recognize, anymore, the creed "bring me your tired...", King's "dream," Kennedy's moonshot, etc. Those speak to idealism not fatalism, and no matter what they might tell you, idealism still floats their boat. Because they're people, dammit. They can't help it. This is the strength and weakness of Democrats, because the world wants to believe, but the world is also full of Jacksonians. I hadn't made the comparison in such a base way before, but that is what Saddam or the Shah of Iran or Machiavelli were: leveragers and livers of base instinct. They were Jacksonian in their willingness to subvert and shortcut spiritual ideals for ends. That pisses people off, butt in many cases, not enough to poke their heads out into the crossfire. (Life first, then liberty, then we get to worrying about happiness.) Jeffersonian ideals always beats them, but only when idealism, call it Muscular Liberalism, gets out of its own way and actually makes a case, and a decision of its own accord. It makes the ground safe for it's egalitarian intent.

Muscular Liberalism. That's not a joke, we have had it in the past. But right now, the only choice available is the Jacksonian one--Muscular Conservatism. And so, any port in a hailstorm of jets as missiles. If Democrats let Republicans amp up the fear beyond reasonable and statisitical merits for their own political gain, or eschew common sense protections in favor of collective rashness, well, it may be Republicans' fault, but it's a Democratic failure.

Democrats compound the weakness in confusing times with footnotes, often very sensible, but not much protection in that hailstorm. The facts are with them, but are cold comfort. In this way, their own innate faith, yes faith, that the future will be better--just because, come-what-may--leaves less exploration-minded Americans nervous. It leaves them feeling, comparatively speaking, well... conservative. A peceived choice: D says "all," R says "nothing." That's the thick of it, I'd say. In failing to answer why embrace of change, or "the other-outsider," is part of our collective character, in simple and resonant, character-based terms--using the oldest truth, spirituality, as leverage--they destroy the viability of the message of progress and action they "know" will serve many. Too bad. Bush's simple grasp of metaphor and his use, however clumsy, of shared meaning *feels* more like protection regardless of whether the "experts" say it's a mirage.

In their own way, political Democrats are faith-based, except their faith is in facts first, then feeling; spirituality as a thing apart, not a necessity. Until they reverse their method, the future is against them. Americans told them that, yesterday.

"The point I now urge you to observe particularly is the part played by the older truths . . . their influence is absolutely controlling. Loyalty to them is the first principle; for by far the most usual way of handling phenomena so novel that they would make for a serious rearrangement of our preconceptions is to ignore them altogether, or to abuse those who bear witness for them."

Thank you Mark!

Tom, my pleasure - I was hesitant to post it, but I'm glad I did and I'm very glad that people like you, Chuck, Aleah, and Mark enjoyed it as much as I did. I got your article - good stuff! If anyone would like to read it, let me know!

The clarity of William James' now 100-years old insight into new opinions above still amazes.

Danah's article hangs with me as I try to assimilate events. A great find that caused me to blurt out the same thing I shouted at my TV as Kerry mangled his Stem Cell and abortion answers in debate # 2: "It's the metaphysics, stupid!"

I found an interesting quote last night that seemed to resonate and tie in nicely with the topic (at least, I think so):

"And what of those people who cling so desperately to their narrow, defensive ego they have constructed in an attempt to defend themselves from annihilation in mass society? We can carefully demonstrate that identification with the wider circle does not mean we lose our individuation. All identification is relative. We maintain a relative ontological individuation while understanding our functional unity and relationship with the place in which we dwell. When my identity is interconnected with the identity of other beings then my experience and existence depends on theirs. Their interests are my interests."

~ Bill Devall

A powerful concept of "the source" of societal and environmental problems.

If you're groovin on that sentiment, I posted something that fits not only with Devall's comment, but also with some aspects of what Jon and I have been talking lots about offline: Connectivity, and the latent similarity of people's urges and ambitions--if, you know what you're looking for. As we keep telling each other, community is politics is business is city is family is brand. Same thing. All contain--the good ones, anyway--a positive spiritual element. You just need more hors d'oeurves for some get-togethers. Anyway, a snip of the post aimed at my fellow Democrats anguishing over "moral values voters":

Faith, hope--and that's that's all faith is: hope in the face of the uncertain--they matter. And, like it or not fellow Democrats, they are first principles, and they have a lexicon. It's a language we've grown uncomfortable with through its misuse by others, but it represents feelings 8 out of 10 of us admit to sharing. And you did not mind when Barack Obama pressed it into service of his ideas. You know the result when Bill Clinton pressed it into service of all our ideas. Or King. Or Kennedy. When you heard them speak, you know that hair on the back of your neck sometimes stood at attention. Do you know why? The force of compassion, collective conscience. A shared spiritual sense and moment. The ultimate power of polis. A bonded future.

David, I reread your comment and this stood out for me: You ask, "But, is it our right or responsibility to spread freedom?" You have to decide for yourself whather it is better to do that or support the insanity that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis during the Saddam regime.

You do realize that Lancet, the British medical journal, is studying Iraqi mortality, post-war, and has documented a startling jump overwhelmingly tilted toward women and children? They estimate we're at 100,000 civilian casualties, and not from bus accidents or insurgent attacks, but severe trauma associated with flying concrete, GBUs, fragmentation, and NATO-issue 7.62 mm rounds. That's after 18 or so months. That's with, conservatively, another 24 months to go, under circumstances headed in the opposite drection from "safe, secure and free."

You seem to conflate the righteous passion felt after 9-11 with the efforts undertaken in Iraq. Now, if those 100,000 and growing casualties wer suffered in Afghanistan, well, one might be able to argue them away under the "Just War" precept, however disproportionate to our 9-11 losses. But that's Afghanistan.

And you're talking about Iraq. Specifically, Anyone who can write, "The terrorists do commit evil acts, but that does not make them evil men." with a straight face needs a reality check, as in a visit to Iraq. One wonders where he was on 9-11...

David, would that visit include Abu Ghraib, Camp Cropper, Al-Baghdadi, Heat Base, and Hubbania Camp in Ramadi? See, we're not exactly pure here. And that troubles me as a descendant of veterans from Vietnam to Valley Forge. Graner, England and other 800th MP Btn, 320th and assorted MI Brigades and contractor types spread across Iraq did some very evil things in our name. Depending on ones piety, they broke military, philosophical, humanitarian and theological taboos. Are they evil in their core? I don't know. I'd like to think not. They couldn't be. After all, they're Americans, right? I'd like to think they were victims of their circumstance and their confusion and pressure from incompetent commanders. And, if those commanders were politically pressured for info on troublingly absent WMDs, then, on insurgents, are they evil? Good question. And if those commanders were being pressured by the White House or the E-Ring at the Pentagon, are they evil too? And if we, as an electorate, endorse....

See, I'd rather not get into a debate about who has more shit on their boots or a shinier halo. I'd rather not discuss whether it is spiritually acceptable to promote the Flypaper Strategy: Draw and localize terrorists to Iraq--Better to have Iraqi citizens cowering in *their* homes as bombs burst overhead and civilian body parts fly, than to have that happen in say, Blomington and Boulder.

I'd much rather talk about the stamina, optimism and confidence in the face of uncertainty that we Americans are mythically known for, instead of the cloying, anxious, vengeful and plaintive "9-11 changed everything."

Implicit in that statement, and, perhaps in your comment, it also changed Us. Question is: For the better?